Saying hi!

Well being bashed here since I've first opened my mouth doesn't help much ya know...and all for stupid crap.

Beefy said:
Yeah, thanks pal. I think she's still getting used to the "culture" of the board so to speak, and she spoke out, and that's all cool with me. Perhaps I could have been more subdued in my approach anyhow.
Click to expand...
 
Here is a good website about socialism.

Link- http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_socialism.php

Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.

But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.

In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.

Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

So how would we decide what human needs are? This question takes us back to the concept of democracy, for the choices of society will reflect their needs. These needs will, of course, vary among different cultures and with individual preferences—but the democratic system could easily be designed to provide for this variety.

We cannot, of course, predict the exact form that would be taken by this future global democracy. The democratic system will itself be the outcome of future democratic decisions. We can however say that it is likely that decisions will need to be taken at a number of different levels—from local to global. This would help to streamline the democratic participation of every individual towards the issues that concern them.

In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.
 
Thanks for the welcome. Well in socialism a person works for the common good and also for personal usage. There are some things of course you don't have to share such as your personal belongings like your home, clothes, bed etc. Here is a link for you to read more- http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_socialism.php I posted the whole thing on page twenty-one. Not everything is given to people except the basic needs like health care and education. But check out that link.

Superfreak said:
southernbelle....

First, welcome to the board, dont think we have chatted before. I would like to know, in a socialist society as you have described, what is the incentive for a person to work? to progress? to be creative?.... if they know everything is going to be given to them?
Click to expand...
 
No, they don't. Communism is the extreme of socialism. Communism and socialists see the government differently as I've mentioned already. Again (for the uptenth time) Communism is where the government owns everything and only Communist party officials make the decisions. In socialism the people own the government and the people get to decide on issues that effect them. So no you're totally wrong. Gee an actual socialist saying you're wrong about socialism...what does that tell you? That hun isn't socialism. It doesn't even come close to socialism. If it's the government deciding it on their own than that goes against the socialist crede so to speak. In socialism it's all about the people deciding. If someone says they want to have the government own everything and claims to be socialist than they're not one. They're a communist. I found this website where even the Communisty party of the US is saying the same thing as me about socialism.
Link- http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/13/

The Foundations of Socialism

Political power would be in the hands of working people. Socialism starts with nationalization of the main means of production - the plants, factories, agri-business farms and everything necessary to produce what society needs. The large monopoly corporations and banks come under public ownership, that is, under the collective ownership of the entire working class and people, who have the leading role in building socialism.

Socialism also means public ownership of the energy industry and all the natural resources. It eliminates forever the power of the capitalist class to exploit and oppress the majority.

A socialist government draws up plans covering the entire economy. They are drawn up with maximum participation of the people, from the shop level on up. Such plans are achieved because they harmonize the interests of all, because there are no conflicts arising from exploitation of workers and no dog-eat-dog competition.

Production increases much faster than under capitalism, with a planned economy, advancement of science and technology, and the protection and preservation of our environment and natural resources.

A socialist government is based on all-around democracy, starting with economic democracy. The more people participate in running their own economy, the more firmly people's power is established, the more successful a socialist America will be.

Trade unions in a socialist USA will insure a fair balance between what workers produce and what they receive. They will have decisive power to enforce safety and health provisions, prevent speedup, and guarantee good transportation, working conditions and plant facilities.

Public services - schools, hospitals, utilities, transit, parks, roads - are crumbling under capitalism. And now corporations are "privatizing" government-run, publicly-owned institutions for private profit.

Under socialism public services and housing will be vastly improved and expanded. They will be broadened in their scope beyond anything dreamed of under capitalism.

The U.S. will become a vast construction site. Homes, schools, hospitals, places of recreation will be built to end shortages, replace substandard infrastructures and public facilities.

The rest of the link answers other question's as well.

Watermark said:
Communism and socialist mean the same thing SouthernBelle. Originally the movement called itself socialist, then some people preferred communism. Marx preferred Communism, but there were also moderates who preferred the term communism. Over the years the radicals parties started calling them communists, and the newly developing democratic movement started to call itself socialist to diffrentiate. But there've been communist parties in Italy, for instance, that were much mores simialar to parties that would call themselves socialist. That's the case with the American Communist party too.

The difference between socialism and communism isn't that in one the government owns everything and in the other it doesn't. There have been socialists who called for a single state to own everything and redistribute it. That's why the Soviet Union was called "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics".


Classicly, the Socialists wanted the government to own everything, and the Communists wanted everyone to live in individual communes. Neither one had any provisions for personal property. Classicly they just wanted all personal property abolished. The modern Democratic socialists and communists realized how impractical this was and moderated.
Click to expand...
 
Well perhaps there's a new queen in town eh? Add to me stubborness so yea. Heh heh. I've been spending most of my time here in this thread trying to answer people's question's (unless they just keep repeating them over and over again than I just say "fuck it"). Heh heh.

Battleborne said:
Damn girl ya better lighten up and get to know people better before ya attack the 'Queen of Mean' only when provoked mind ya!...the one and only Said1..............:corn::hide:
Click to expand...
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
Prove it or shut up. Are you going to prove it? Or just some more delusions from you? Hun Chavez isn't a dictator. Chavez was democratically elected since 1998. Sorry you don't like it but tough shit. Not your country. So either prove your slanderous claims or shut the hell up and go away to your pathetic corner and cry.
Click to expand...


But do you believe in the existence of corruption and coercion?

and here's the facts, maam

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/14/85241.shtml
On April 9-10, hundreds of thousands of protesters from pro-democratic political parties, labor unions, and business and civic associations marched in the Venezuelan capital to show their opposition to the latest anti-democratic actions of Mr. Chavez.

In response, Mr. Chavez mobilized his paramilitary armed thugs, the "Bolivian Circles." They were televised shooting the unarmed protesters, killing and wounding more than 100 while others sped around on motorcycles looking for journalists to attack. Mr. Chavez also sent armed supporters to close down television stations reporting the protests.

When Mr. Chavez ordered the military to use force to halt the peaceful demonstrations, 30 senior officers refused to obey. They said Mr. Chavez had violated "democratic principles" and that they would no longer recognize his authority because they wanted to "avoid more spilling of blood and the destruction of our brave people and their institutions."

From their point of view, those military leaders were joining a broad-based civic movement calling for the end of an emerging Chavez dictatorship, just as had occurred in 1945 and again in 1958 when a civil-military coalition removed a dictator and Venezuela began its four decades as a political democracy.

Understanding the reasons the pro-democratic groups in Venezuela oppose Mr. Chavez requires a brief review of his anti-democratic actions, which have been little noted outside Venezuela.

Mr. Chavez moved Venezuela through four principal phases.

First, the use of illegal and pseudo-legal means to invalidate the existing constitution (in force since 1961) and have a new constitution written by his supporters (1999).

Second, under the new constitution, having himself eligible to be president for two six-year terms and obtaining a unicameral legislature that would give him dominant federal powers (2000).

Third, beginning his "social revolution" by using presidential decrees in the fall of 2001 to begin confiscating private property.

The fourth phase began in January, when Mr. Chavez established the political command of the Revolution under his direct control to supervise the "Bolivian Circles" - an armed militia of Chavez supporters who would intimidate and if necessary seek to defeat the political-civic opposition and the Venezuelan armed forces.
This was intended to assure his indefinite continuation in power. In a March television appearance, Mr. Chavez announced his decision to allocate $150 million from the federal budget to fund his armed thugs. This was illegal because the legislature had not given its approval.

The pseudo-legality of the existing democratic political system began in April 1999 when Mr. Chavez called for a referendum to decide whether a Constituent Assembly should be convened to write a new constitution for Venezuela.
The major democratic parties did not feel there was any need for a new constitution but, demoralized and intimidated, they made virtually no effort to contest the issue. The lack of citizen support for a new constitution was seen in the fact that only 39 percent of the Venezuelan electorate voted in the referendum.

In July 1999, elections were held to choose the delegates for the Constituent Assembly. Chavez supporters were confident, active and intimidating, while those representing the pro-democratic parties were fearful and only beginning to return to political activity. The groups opposing Mr. Chavez received 38 percent of the vote, compared with 42 percent for the pro-Chavez slates of candidates.

By a fraudulent process, the pro-Chavez 42 percent of the votes was translated into 93 percent of the seats in the Constituent Assembly, while the opposition parties received only the remaining 7 percent of the seats.

In August 1999, this Chavez-dominated Constituent Assembly convened and immediately took actions to neutralize and usurp the authority of the existing judiciary and of Venezuela's elected Congress, where Chavez supporters had won only 20 percent of the seats.

On Aug. 25, 1999, the Constituent Assembly, in violation of the existing constitution, declared a "legislative emergency" and forbade the elected national Congress from meeting. From that time on, the elected national Congress was effectively sidelined.

These actions in July and August 1999 marked the Chavez regime as anti-democratic and in complete violation of the then-existing Venezuelan constitution.

Democratic political leaders in Venezuela appealed to the Organization of American States, the Clinton administration and other countries to speak out against these unconstitutional actions. Only silence was heard.

Mr. Chavez now moved to use pseudo-electoral means to put his loyalists in control of the powerful independent labor unions grouped together in the Venezuelan Confederation of Labor (CTV). IThe CTV has a long history of supporting political democracy and opposing dictatorship, and a well-organized membership of more than a million.

On Dec. 3, 2000, Mr. Chavez held a national referendum on whether all the union leaders should be dismissed from their positions. With turnout at only 23 percent, the referendum passed.

Labor leaders claimed this referendum violated the 1999 Chavez constitution, provisions of which protect union leaders from state intervention. Nevertheless, the CTV leadership was required to resign and run for office in new union elections, and 80 percent of previous CTV leaders were re-elected.

Having escaped the Chavez takeover attempt, the CTV labor unions have been all the more vigorous in their campaign for the restoration of democracy and their opposition to Mr. Chavez. They called a major pro-democracy demonstration for May 1.

Internationally, Mr. Chavez has established alliances with Cuba, Iraq and Iran, all state supporters of terrorism. He has provided the Castro regime with free oil, probably worth $2 billion, and worked closely with Cuba in support of the communist guerrillas in Colombia and other anti-democratic movements attacking nearby countries.

Even the Clinton administration broke its silence on Mr. Chavez, stating in December 2000 that the Venezuelan was supporting "violent movements opposing the governments of Colombia, Bolivia and Ecuador." There has been an increasing flow of credible evidence, including from the former Chavez chief of intelligence, that the regime has been and remains a state supporter of terrorism through its aid for the Colombian communist guerrillas and other radical groups.

As Mr. Chavez consolidates his control in the coming weeks and months, his actions will threaten democracy in Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Brazil, where Mr. Chavez and Fidel Castro both hope to repeat the pattern of a pseudo-constitutional takeover through the election of the radical Ignacio da Silva as president in October.

That could put nearly 300 million people under the control of pro-Castro/Iraq radical regimes before 2004 – a major gain for anti-U.S. terrorism and a major setback for the people there and for the Bush administration.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It scares me how much insane propaganda is being taught in our universities. I mean look at this chick. She's a complete loon.
 
Oh I see. So I'm a loon for having my own beliefs right? :rolleyes: You're the only one spewing propoganda and coming into my thread insulting me. For every insult you do that's a report.

AssHatZombie said:
It scares me how much insane propaganda is being taught in our universities. I mean look at this chick. She's a complete loon.
Click to expand...
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
Oh I see. So I'm a loon for having my own beliefs right? :rolleyes: You're the only one spewing propoganda and coming into my thread insulting me. For every insult you do that's a report.
Click to expand...

No. You're a loon because you refuse to believe Chavez is an authoritarian prick, though it's well proven.
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
No, they don't. Communism is the extreme of socialism. Communism and socialists see the government differently as I've mentioned already. Again (for the uptenth time) Communism is where the government owns everything and only Communist party officials make the decisions. In socialism the people own the government and the people get to decide on issues that effect them. So no you're totally wrong. Gee an actual socialist saying you're wrong about socialism...what does that tell you? That hun isn't socialism. It doesn't even come close to socialism. If it's the government deciding it on their own than that goes against the socialist crede so to speak. In socialism it's all about the people deciding. If someone says they want to have the government own everything and claims to be socialist than they're not one. They're a communist. I found this website where even the Communisty party of the US is saying the same thing as me about socialism.
Link- http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/13/

The Foundations of Socialism

Political power would be in the hands of working people. Socialism starts with nationalization of the main means of production - the plants, factories, agri-business farms and everything necessary to produce what society needs. The large monopoly corporations and banks come under public ownership, that is, under the collective ownership of the entire working class and people, who have the leading role in building socialism.

Socialism also means public ownership of the energy industry and all the natural resources. It eliminates forever the power of the capitalist class to exploit and oppress the majority.

A socialist government draws up plans covering the entire economy. They are drawn up with maximum participation of the people, from the shop level on up. Such plans are achieved because they harmonize the interests of all, because there are no conflicts arising from exploitation of workers and no dog-eat-dog competition.

Production increases much faster than under capitalism, with a planned economy, advancement of science and technology, and the protection and preservation of our environment and natural resources.

A socialist government is based on all-around democracy, starting with economic democracy. The more people participate in running their own economy, the more firmly people's power is established, the more successful a socialist America will be.

Trade unions in a socialist USA will insure a fair balance between what workers produce and what they receive. They will have decisive power to enforce safety and health provisions, prevent speedup, and guarantee good transportation, working conditions and plant facilities.

Public services - schools, hospitals, utilities, transit, parks, roads - are crumbling under capitalism. And now corporations are "privatizing" government-run, publicly-owned institutions for private profit.

Under socialism public services and housing will be vastly improved and expanded. They will be broadened in their scope beyond anything dreamed of under capitalism.

The U.S. will become a vast construction site. Homes, schools, hospitals, places of recreation will be built to end shortages, replace substandard infrastructures and public facilities.

The rest of the link answers other question's as well.
Click to expand...

There's no shortages of recreation, homes, schools, or hospitals in the US. The only places I remember hearing about shortages recently was Venezula and Cuba.


And you're still acting like it's all or none. Communism doesn't fit under the definition that you put it under, and socialism doesn't either. There are many socialists who think the government should own everything. LENIN WAS A SOCIALIST.
 
Oh hun. Pathetic pathetic. I'm through with trying to show you the truth. It's out there if you want it. Chavez hasn't killed anyone has he? Nope. You're the only one in this conversation who is brainwashed. You still think Communism and socialism are the same. :rolleyes: So you've proven yet again of your ignorance. It's a fun game. I could add pictionary if you want.

AssHatZombie said:
His thuggishness and dictator-like qualities are well documented. You've been brainwashed.
Click to expand...
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
Oh hun. Pathetic pathetic. I'm through with trying to show you the truth. It's out there if you want it. Chavez hasn't killed anyone has he? Nope. You're the only one in this conversation who is brainwashed. You still think Communism and socialism are the same. :rolleyes: So you've proven yet again of your ignorance. It's a fun game. I could add pictionary if you want.
Click to expand...
So far you keep saying this. However, in the context of Marxist writing, communism is exactly what is happening there. As the government gains control of production. It is the next step to reach this Socialism that you keep posting about, yet there is not even one example of socialism working in the world today.

In each case you will find welfare programs, or government ownership of assets, that is not socialism in such a sense as you propound actually is socialism. It is what Marx calls communism, which is the step before socialism which has yet to be reached in any nation.
 
No hun. I'm not a loon and Chavez isn't a prick. He's been following VENEZUELA'S CONSTITUTION to a tee. Might wanna try reading that document sometime before you go and say shit about another country's leader. If the people of Venezuela really believed like you then he wouldn't had survived the 2002 coup attempt which was endorsed by the Bush administration. They're the only pricks. You're barking up the wrong pathetic tree. Try a new tune. Chavez has been president since 1998: you think this is anything new? Funny how the people keep re-electing him and love him down there. Does he have political opposition? Of course: it's politics. But for you to claim the shit likes to do shows you listen to too much rightwing media. I bet you get your talking points from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly.

AssHatZombie said:
No. You're a loon because you refuse to believe Chavez is an authoritarian prick, though it's well proven.
Click to expand...
 
Are you seriously saying that with a straight face? Even here in my own town we have homeless people living on the streets! We have infostructer crumbling all over the place! You should come down here to my city and go downtown and look at the old buildings from the 60's and 70's. They're pathetic! And you have a shortage of hospitals when people use the hospitals for health care because they don't have health insurance to go to the doctor for basic medicine to cure a cold and it only gets worse. Communism is the extreme of socialism. I've already said that. However there are still pretty big differences. Especially in how we view the government. Again for the uptenth time socialists believe the community and the public making decisions (see the national referendum in Venezuela for an example) where as Communists believe in the government making the decision and only party officials at that. Look at the differences between Venezuela and Cuba. They're huge. My family has a friend who went to Cuba and from her experiences and my own research (it was for a class project a couple of terms ago) Cuba and Venezuela aren't a thing a like. They may have similar policies like a national health care program and whatnot but how the government is run and personal freedoms there's a huge difference. In Cuba you can't have a church unless it's registered under the government and they approve it. I haven't heard of that law in Venezuela unless for some reason I've just missed it.

Watermark said:
There's no shortages of recreation, homes, schools, or hospitals in the US. The only places I remember hearing about shortages recently was Venezula and Cuba.


And you're still acting like it's all or none. Communism doesn't fit under the definition that you put it under, and socialism doesn't either. There are many socialists who think the government should own everything. LENIN WAS A SOCIALIST.
Click to expand...
 
Uh no. I've known socialists who quote Marx too. Doesn't make them Communists does it? Nope. Once again it's all how you view the government. I've given plenty of links for you to see the difference. I even gave you a link to the communist party of the US and what they say about socialism. And yes there is an example of socialism working again. You're missing Western Europe and even France is more socialist than here in the States and once again Venezuela. And once again the people own the government and the government works for the people. That is socialism.

Damocles said:
So far you keep saying this. However, in the context of Marxist writing, communism is exactly what is happening there. As the government gains control of production. It is the next step to reach this Socialism that you keep posting about, yet there is not even one example of socialism working in the world today.

In each case you will find welfare programs, or government ownership of assets, that is not socialism in such a sense as you propound actually is socialism. It is what Marx calls communism, which is the step before socialism which has yet to be reached in any nation.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top